Bardsley v. Pluger

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed a dispute involving an order of protection, alleged easement rights, amendment of pleadings, summary judgment, and attorney's fees. The court vacated the amended order of protection because the affected respondent was not given the statutorily required opportunity to be heard, but affirmed the denial of leave to amend, the grant of summary judgment, and the award of attorney's fees.

Holdings

1. A court abuses its discretion when it expands a permanent order of protection to include a respondent without first conducting the statutorily mandated hearing at which the respondent has an opportunity to testify and present evidence.
2. A district court may deny leave to amend when the amendment would cause undue prejudice and the moving party has not sufficiently justified its delay; litigants should be allowed to change legal theories after a summary-judgment motion has been filed only in extraordinary cases.
3. Summary judgment was proper because, after denial of the motion to amend, plaintiffs had no viable properly pleaded easement claim and conceded that their original express-easement theory could not survive.
4. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding defendants attorney's fees under Montana's equitable exception to the American Rule because plaintiffs litigated meritless legal theories for nearly a year and a half without reasonable explanation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by issuing the amended order of protection without providing Dora Cichantek the statutorily required opportunity to be heard.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add the property owner and new easement theories.
3. Whether the District Court erred by granting defendants summary judgment after denying the motion to amend.
4. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by awarding defendants attorney's fees.

Disposition

other